5 ms·
It seems like it is, but this agreement is typically presented for two reasons: * as a way to show that a country should never give up its nukes. But they were
by blub 4y ago
It seems like it is, but this agreement is typically presented for two reasons:
* as a way to show that a country should never give up its nukes. But they were forced and incentivized to give them up.
* as a way of showing Russia won’t honor its agreements. But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus (other signatories which also gave up their nukes).
And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism.
At the end of the day, Russia will probably respect an official treaty if the incentives and disincentives are right. Much like China or the US IMO.
- ceejayoz 4y ago> But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. Sure. Russia later reneged on the incentives by invading Ukraine (repeatedly!). Thus, relevant. > But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus. "What about all the murders I didn't do?" isn't a great defense. > And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. Cool, then they can stop whining about the supposed NATO "agreement" not to expand, which was not an official treaty, not legally binding, and doesn't have an enforcement mechanism.